Live data from Hacker News

Google Open-Sources Cardboard

github.com

21–30 of 182 posts

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#21
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

Is VR not just a special case of AR?

I don't think Apple or Microsoft's (released) AR stuff can be used for VR. Apple's ARKit just runs on a phone screen (which obviously isn't AR) and HoloLens doesn't have the field of view to be VR. So they'll probably converge eventually but the products right now solve one or the other, but not both.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#22
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

Is VR not just a special case of AR?

IMO it's the other way around, AR is a special case of VR. To make an AR system, you need to basically do all the work involved in making a VR system, then somehow integrate it with a video feed of the outside world, then convincingly add digital content to that video feed in a way that complies with the real world's geometry, which you have to extrapolate from the video. Basically it's much easier to accurately place virtual objects in a virtual world than it is to put virtual objects in the real world. You know the geometry of the virtual world but can only make educated guesses about the geometry of the real world.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#23
I still don't quite understand why I can't strap myself to my existing phone with a couple of periscopes, run an app outputting the two images on the left and the right halves, and control it with some bluetooth joypad.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#24
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

Is VR not just a special case of AR?

Not at all. They are completely different problems, both from technical and product perspectives.

VR is all about total immersion - sights, sounds, movements and everything else. The entire world needs to be contained in the headset, and what's happening outside it is irrelevant.

AR, on the other hand, is about interacting with your surroundings. Immersion is cut down, but the system now has to be intelligent about the outside world - recognizing objects, projecting at the right places etc.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#25
post #6

For those out of the loop: Google has gradually shut down and in some cases, open sourced their VR projects (Daydream, Mirage, VR180, Seurat, etc) over the last 6-12 months to be more focused on their mobile AR projects (ARCore, Google Streetview AR, Lens, etc). A sad day for VR.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

Google was actually the first company to release an AR-capable phone, with depth sensing capabilities, back in 2014[0]. Due to their inability to properly market the device (or maybe the market wasn't ready at the time), they cut back on that division. One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_(platform)#Devices

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#26
post #21
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is VR not just a special case of AR?

I don't think Apple or Microsoft's (released) AR stuff can be used for VR. Apple's ARKit just runs on a phone screen (which obviously isn't AR) and HoloLens doesn't have the field of view to be VR. So they'll probably converge eventually but the products right now solve one or the other, but not both.

> which obviously isn't AR

Really? Why not?

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#27
post #23

I still don't quite understand why I can't strap myself to my existing phone with a couple of periscopes, run an app outputting the two images on the left and the right halves, and control it with some bluetooth joypad.

[deleted]

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#28
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

Google was actually the first company to release an AR-capable phone, with depth sensing capabilities, back in 2014[0]. Due to their inability to properly market the device (or maybe the market wasn't ready at the time), they cut back on that division. One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_(platform)#Devices

> One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo.

It's entirely plausible that AR ends up being a dead end. It's 5 years later and still not really a big market.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#29
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Apple and Microsoft really nailed with focusing on AR instead of VR.

Google was actually the first company to release an AR-capable phone, with depth sensing capabilities, back in 2014[0]. Due to their inability to properly market the device (or maybe the market wasn't ready at the time), they cut back on that division. One of Google's big tactical mistakes, imo. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_(platform)#Devices

I don't think that really qualifies as "release" at all. "Several hundred Peanut devices were distributed to early-access partners including university researchers in computer vision and robotics, as well as application developers and technology startups" but I see no evidence that it was actually available for sale. Neither was the Yellowstone tablet.

Re: Google Open-Sources Cardboard

#30
post #22
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is VR not just a special case of AR?

IMO it's the other way around, AR is a special case of VR. To make an AR system, you need to basically do all the work involved in making a VR system, then somehow integrate it with a video feed of the outside world, then convincingly add digital content to that video feed in a way that complies with the real world's geometry, which you have to extrapolate from the video. Basically it's much easier to accurately plac…

That’s why I’d think of VR as a special case of AR. As you said, VR is in many ways is “easier”. So I’d think of VR as a special case of AR where the environment is also computer generated.

In other words, moving from VR to AR would require a ton of extra work to integrate the real world. But moving from AR to VR should be much more straightforward, albeit in many ways equally challenging because now you have to worry about two worlds - the normal overlay of AR and the environment from VR.

Now that I’ve said that, maybe I should think of them as more like related disciplines instead of special cases of each other...

Post reply on HN